Monday, 11 February 2013

The Summit, not Giles, is what we wanted to discuss

So The Summit has been cancelled. As you
may know, I blogged on here a few weeks ago questioning the lineup after many
people on Twitter commented that there was only one woman speaking and all
speakers are employed by agencies.

The Summit opened up, I think, a much
needed debate about equality and how even in our sector, women still seem
invisible at times. (In fact, the whole raison d’etre of Charity Chicks). Sadly
the point about the speakers all being from agencies seemed to get lost and was
never really discussed.

I think it is an equally valid point and one I would
love to see debated with the same passion at some point.

Now I love a good debate and I love Twitter.
One of the great things about social media, and in particular Twitter and
blogging, is it gives anyone a voice. Which is fantastic. It makes it a great and
exciting time to be a fundraiser, and a great and exciting time to be a person
interested in the world around you.

Giles Pegram took to Twitter to respond and
I personally was pleased to see him do so. Debate is not debate when it is one
sided.

In fact, I would have loved to have seen the other speakers join in and
discuss! (At least four are on Twitter at the last look).

Now the problem with Twitter is it gives a
voice to anyone as long as they have the knack of commenting in 140 characters
or less. It is a great place to spark debate but not necessarily the best place
to finish a debate.

Giles said some stuff on Twitter that was
then incorporated into a news article. Taken away from Twitter and printed in black
and white it looked pretty shocking and offensive. Put back into Twitter and in
the context of short, snappy, 140 character responses it looked more like
clumsy, but at least engaged, debate.

Tania Mason of Civil Society then spoke to Giles to get his opinion - away from the Twittersphere, and in person. Giles then made some widely reported comments, for which he has subsequently apologised.

Whilst, sadly, none of the other Summit contributors felt able to engage in the debate from what I can see, I do feel, and suspect many other people involved in this debate feel the same way, that Giles has been made into the face of
this issue.

Giles has given so much to our sector and
is great fighter for equality. The Summit, not Giles, is what we wanted to
discuss. And The Summit is an example of the problem, but not the problem. There
is so much to discuss and improve around the issue of diversity in our sector.

BUT The Summit put itself out there as
wanting to solve the crisis in our sector for us. That is a bold statement and
one that, in this social media age, is inviting itself to be discussed,
challenged and argued over. People on Twitter had every right to question the
lineup and Charity Chicks had every right to blog about it.

So I was a little surprised to see The
Agitator so agitated this morning that The Summit has been cancelled. The idea
that asking important questions about The Summit is a firing squad seems a bit
over the top to me and the comment about ‘a giant nibbled at the heels by dwarfs,’
is, I think, pretty offensive to the fundraisers out there who wanted to comment.

But the Agitators are entitled to their
opinion just as much as we at Charity Chicks are entitled to ours.

In fact the very first comment on the
article is questioning how anyone can claim to be a feminist and refer to
themselves as ‘chicks’. I happily call myself both a feminist and a charity
chick and don’t see a problem with it.

However we didn’t set up a blog for
everyone to agree with everything we said and tell us how great we are. Criticism
is an important part of helping this blog get better.

So with this in mind, I think it is a shame
The Summit was cancelled. I hope that it does happen at some point and the
comments, concerns and yes, criticism, of it are taken into account and it
comes back bigger, better and stronger.

Great piece Kathryn. Lessons learned on all sides, and I am delighted to see so many in the sector taking nuanced and sensible views – above all, perhaps, continuing to give Giles the respect he absolutely deserves.

Am intrigued by this debate - in my (relatively short) career as a fundraiser I have very rarely come across men doing a similar role. Our sector seems to be chock full of women. Surely there are plenty of experienced females who cld have been on the panel? Or is it the case that women don't quite reach the top? If so, sad and worrying.